Manchester Oxford Road Station Remodelling Scheme consultation: what do you think should happen?

[The Planner]

The two year closure for these works doesn't seem to give that much increase in capacity for trains - up from 12 tph to 14tph if I've read the proposal summary correctly - so a fairly paltry 17% increase in numbers of trains. The increase in platform length to cope with 8-carriage trains will combine with that to add more passenger-carrying capacity. But set against that, there must today be a fair bit of suppressed demand because of overcrowding. I would suspect that it wouldn't be more than 5-10 years before that corridor ends up massively over capacity again and requiring further interventions.

Two questions come to mind:
1. Once the works have been done, will it be Oxford Road station itself that prevents more than 14tph, or would it be the case that the rebuilt station could cope with more, but there's something else along the corridor preventing more than 14tph (and which could therefore be fixed with some work somewhere else)?
2. How many of the current 12tph could reasonably be lengthened to 8 carriages, without first requiring substantial (and not yet planned) work at other stations along their routes?

Its not there as a capacity provider for trains.

 

[stephen rp]

This is why an exit from Oxford Rd in the direction of Deansgate would be a good idea. After 5 mins walking you end up underneath the point where you got off the train.

Sling a footway to the north wall of the viaduct from Oxford Road to Deansgate. Like the Runcorn railway bridge used to have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

1. Once the works have been done, will it be Oxford Road station itself that prevents more than 14tph, or would it be the case that the rebuilt station could cope with more, but there's something else along the corridor preventing more than 14tph (and which could therefore be fixed with some work somewhere else)?

The fundamental problem with the corridor is that it isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink but rather a coming together of variably delayed, too short, often end-doored trains from all over the North West and further afield. That means that if you cram in too many you'll get a mess. That's your real limit, not the layout of any of the stations.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

1. Once the works have been done, will it be Oxford Road station itself that prevents more than 14tph, or would it be the case that the rebuilt station could cope with more, but there's something else along the corridor preventing more than 14tph (and which could therefore be fixed with some work somewhere else)?

The more that I think about this one, the more I see it as being phase 2 of a larger project, with phase 1 being the Ordsall Chord. But as with the Ordsall Chord, the investment won't come to fruition until the whole project is completed - and that (at the very least) needs platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly with what that would offer (on a less constrained site than Oxford Road) for looping trains and so on.

 

[D Mylchreest]

One day people are going to have to grasp the nettle and quadruple the MSJ&A, The LNWR and it's successors have been putting it off since the mid 1860s

 

[30907]

The fundamental problem with the corridor is that it isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink but rather a coming together of variably delayed, too short, often end-doored trains from all over the North West and further afield. That means that if you cram in too many you'll get a mess. That's your real limit, not the layout of any of the stations.

To be fair, that's normally now down to the one EM service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, that's normally now down to the one EM service.

That service (its incessant delays, the end doors and typically it being severely overcrowded) is probably the biggest problem on the corridor to be honest.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

To be fair, that's normally now down to the one EM service.

TPE Scotlands (also 1tph) are end doored too.

EMR is only part end doors, a number of 170s are showing up on the Liverpool-Norwich now (some 3+3, a big improvement over 2+2 158!)

 

[Efini92]

One day people are going to have to grasp the nettle and quadruple the MSJ&A, The LNWR and it's successors have been putting it off since the mid 1860s

Would’ve been a lot easier in the 1860’s. I wonder what the costs of CPO’s would come to?

 

[The Planner]

One day people are going to have to grasp the nettle and quadruple the MSJ&A, The LNWR and it's successors have been putting it off since the mid 1860s

What line is that for us normals?

 

[Senex]

Would’ve been a lot easier in the 1860’s. I wonder what the costs of CPO’s would come to?

Both the South Junction line and the northern junction line passed through built-up areas from the start. It would certainly have been cheaper to have four tracks back in the 1840s in terms of the costs and difficulties of land acquisition, but it may well not have been easy. Widening would have been much easier in the C19 than now — witness the widening on the north junction side — but doesn't seem to have been considered for the South Junction route. Which now leaves us the problem of a simple two-track railway with a set of entirely flat junctions trying to handle local, inter-city, and freight traffic and failing to deliver properly for any of them.

 

[Krokodil]

The fundamental problem with the corridor is that it isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink but rather a coming together of variably delayed, too short, often end-doored trains from all over the North West and further afield. That means that if you cram in too many you'll get a mess. That's your real limit, not the layout of any of the stations.

Fewer end-doored stock than there used to be, but yes I used to go through the delay attribution entries and discover that my train losing 5 minutes through Castlefield had been traced back to a door fault in Darlington.

 

[jfollows]

What line is that for us normals?

Do you mean the Manchester, South Junction & Altrincham railway? Actually was quadrupled in parts, but not the bit in the centre of Manchester.

EG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester,_South_Junction_and_Altrincham_Railway

 

[Senex]

Do you mean the Manchester, South Junction & Altrincham railway? Actually was quadrupled in parts, but not the bit in the centre of Manchester.

EG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester,_South_Junction_and_Altrincham_Railway

I meant the South Junction line proper, the original project without the Altrincham branch (even though that was added in at the planning stage, authorised by the same Act, and opened first (by a few days)). Yes, a major portion of the branch was quadrupled.

Were there any cross-city lines in this country that were built with four tracks from the start? I don't think Manchester was uniquely unlucky in that respect, but it was unlucky in that nothing was done to improve this one when it would have been more easily possible. I wonder how far that could be down to the fact that whilst one of the two owning companies was wealthy and successful, that was the one that probably made the lesser amount of use of this connection, whereas the company for which it would have been more valuable was the one that was always horribly short of money and in any case eventually got a cross-Manchester connection by a new line further out (the Fallowfield loop).

 

[D Mylchreest]

Both the South Junction line and the northern junction line passed through built-up areas from the start. It would certainly have been cheaper to have four tracks back in the 1840s in terms of the costs and difficulties of land acquisition, but it may well not have been easy. Widening would have been much easier in the C19 than now — witness the widening on the north junction side — but doesn't seem to have been considered for the South Junction route. Which now leaves us the problem of a simple two-track railway with a set of entirely flat junctions trying to handle local, inter-city, and freight traffic and failing to deliver properly for any of them.

Not so. The bit from London Road to Oxford Road was private houses and gardens (including a beautiful 16th Century half timbered farmhouse of which a photo exists) and the rest was open fields, very soon to be built on. And as soon as it was built on the price of quadrupling went up because each and every private owner of the land wanted more and more money for the freehold. It was a lot easier and cheaper to negotiate with one or two landowners as was realised after the London and Birmingham widened Camden Bank (which cost a fortune). This why so many railways have very wide right of ways even when they have not been used subsequently.
Basically the Manchester and Birmingham Railway and the Sheffield, Ashton Under Lyne and Manchester Railway (joint owners of the MSJ&A) cocked it up big time, failing to notice what happened in Camden. The LNWR got around the problem by building a huge by-pass around Manchester formed by the Guide Bridge to Heaton line, the Edgeley Junction to Northenden Junction line, running rights over ST&AJc (Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction) as far as Broadheath and then over leased railways (mostly) to Liverpool. From the LNWR's point of view there was an additional benefit in that it limited the Sheffield's access to Liverpool for many years.
It might be of interest to now that the reason why the GWR ended up with a service to Exchange rather than Stockport (where it really wanted to go) was congestion over the elevated section of the MSJ&A. That congestion continues.

 

[plugwash]

The fundamental problem with the corridor is that it isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink but rather a coming together of variably delayed, too short, often end-doored trains from all over the North West and further afield. That means that if you cram in too many you'll get a mess. That's your real limit, not the layout of any of the stations.

And taking out the ability to re-order trains at oxford road seems like it would make said mess even worse.

 

[Meerkat]

On the surface going by the diagram, I would imagine you could phase things relatively easily. In essence, the only "big" bits that appear to be happening are that the platform 2 line is being removed and the platform built out to meet the platform 1 line from the other side (and the platform lengthened westwards), and platform 4 being extended over the access to platform 5. Other than that, it's just changes to pointwork (and obvs. the signalling).

So at the start, close platform 2 and have everything heading west use platform 1 for the duration, close platforms 4 and 5, redirecting services to platform 3. That gives you two usable through platforms whilst you build out platform 2 and lengthen platform 4.

Once platform 4 is lengthened, flip services from 3 to it, and make the changes needed to cut the link on the eastern end. Once 2 has been built out, close 1. Then resignal everything.

Really doesn't sound like a two year closure's worth of work...? Unless they just mean weekend closures or some such, which would make a lot more sense.

Platform 1 doesnt have a lift and is narrow. And Im not sure you could keep the station open and keep passengers away from the work. Also they need a crane etc and that needs to go where the passengers go.

 

[The exile]

Were there any cross-city lines in this country that were built with four tracks from the start?

Waverley - Haymarket possibly?

 

[Efini92]

I meant the South Junction line proper, the original project without the Altrincham branch (even though that was added in at the planning stage, authorised by the same Act, and opened first (by a few days)). Yes, a major portion of the branch was quadrupled.

Were there any cross-city lines in this country that were built with four tracks from the start? I don't think Manchester was uniquely unlucky in that respect, but it was unlucky in that nothing was done to improve this one when it would have been more easily possible. I wonder how far that could be down to the fact that whilst one of the two owning companies was wealthy and successful, that was the one that probably made the lesser amount of use of this connection, whereas the company for which it would have been more valuable was the one that was always horribly short of money and in any case eventually got a cross-Manchester connection by a new line further out (the Fallowfield loop).

I guess Manchester never had the need to improve the castlefield corridor in the early days due to Victoria and central station taking the bulk of the work north, east and west.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that one way or another, we need it able to serve 8 carriage trains.

If there really is no other way than to close it for two years, it will have to happen. Alternatively, if there's a less disruptive workaround, I'd take that.

 

[endecotp]

Waverley - Haymarket possibly?

No; compare these maps:

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

Georeferenced Maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

 

[Geeves]

And taking out the ability to re-order trains at oxford road seems like it would make said mess even worse.

To be fair that isn't something that happens now, if a train is delayed it stays delayed. Potentially it can be regulated south of Piccadilly. The layout at Oxford Road (as has been shown by the final plan) means that the two extra lines see very little use, various things do not allow it and the trains are only getting longer.

 

[JNicholson]

Well we needed platfroms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly as that was the bottleneck (as well as the numerous flat junctions). This two year scheme is amazing because it reduces the capacity at Oxford Road so that it matches what we have at Piccadilly. Bingo! What a result.

I am not sure how platforms 15 and 16 could be opened. The railway is pretty hemmed in by buildings. I know an extra layer could (at least in theory) be built, but that would mean a steep ascent/decent at both ends and for the junctions. That is assuming you do not compulsory purchase the buildings along that corridor and knock the buildings down.

Building that Ordsall Chord was a silly idea. I also understand the preference for wanting Liverpool - Newcastle trains going through Piccadilly (connection to the Airport), but that should have been routed through Victoria.

Perhaps Mayfield could be re-opened for the Northern services (Manchester P - Alderley Edge/Chester/Crewe/Macclesfield/Stoke-on-Trent which terminate at Piccadilly and connect Piccadilly to Mayfield with a bridge of some sort). Call it Manchester Piccadilly (Annex) or Manchester Mayfield. The expresses can leave from the main station. I would also redesign the tracks to Slade Lane Junction and/or reduce the number of trains going to the Airport (make that an exclusive for current Northern Services and start TransPennine Services at Victoria increasing capacity at that station, too). This would remove a few of the movements across platforms 13/14 per hour. I know I may only be shifting the problem a little further down the line and/or creating two bottlenecks, but I would have thought reducing the number of trains across the points would be of benefit. Perhaps even reduce other services as well (such as Liverpool - Norwich).

Perhaps the intermodals can be re-routed to clear up some capacity. Some of those trains take out at least two full signalling sections due to length.

Some of the redesign ideas will not even be considered because Network Rail probably (at least in principle) want to prioritise the convenience of every luggage laden passenger changing trains (hence many trains going through the one station). If the customer is always correct then the railway runs to my whim rather than I organise myself around a sensible railway timetable not run at maximum capacity every hour or 15 minutes (no slack in the system means busier periods are treated the same as less busy periods - does every destination require an Airport connection every x minutes, so a train runs along the Styal Loop every five minutes?). My ideas are from a starting again perspective. Easier written than done, too - if it were that easy and/or obvious presumably it would have been done by now.

 

[josh-j]

I am not sure how platforms 15 and 16 could be opened.

The plans had already been drawn up and were ready to go. It is actually possible to do things, engineers know their stuff!

The problem was politics, not practicalities. Which means it would be perfectly possible to resurrect the plans and build the platforms given a bit of vision and optimism.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I am not sure how platforms 15 and 16 could be opened. The railway is pretty hemmed in by buildings.

Not where Piccadilly platforms 15/16 might be built it isn't. The area immediately to the South of the station is basically roads and car parks. Looking on Google maps there seems to be just one building just South of the Western end of the platforms that might be in the way if you wanted to build the platforms alongside the existing ones.

 

[JNicholson]

The plans had already been drawn up and were ready to go. It is actually possible to do things, engineers know their stuff!

The problem was politics, not practicalities. Which means it would be perfectly possible to resurrect the plans and build the platforms given a bit of vision and optimism.

Not where Piccadilly platforms 15/16 might be built it isn't. The area immediately to the South of the station is basically roads and car parks. Looking on Google maps there seems to be just one building just South of the Western end of the platforms that might be in the way if you wanted to build the platforms alongside the existing ones.

Interesting and more platforms could be created at Piccadilly. However, further toward Oxford Road and beyond you would be demolishing buildings (assuming a four-track set-up) and other considerations exist. The sort of city he wants to be in is a consideration even though a political consideration (that which is public is political and that which involves an other is public).

Also, I am not sure only(?) two extra platforms would be very useful. Two extra platforms (15/16) would potentially ease crowding on platforms 13/14. However, the switches for 15/16 would possibly increase congestion (four tracks going into two tracks and two tracks into four tracks even if the platforms are arranged down-down/up-up). Either way (whether down/up-down/up or down-down/up-up) at some point the switch track a will have to: A train on track a will have to cross track b to get to track c (and the same for a train on track d to get onto track b) either through a crossing or a ladder junction arrangement or down/up a and down/up b to respectively combine/split. The middle two tracks (b and c) would become clogged if all four tracks are run at capacity unless tracks b and c are only(?) to be used as relief lines.

Anyway, my main point was that building is not the only solution to a problem. More is not always better. First reform what we have rather than use 'vision and optimism' as an all-encompassing solution. I know 'vision and optimism' allows me to think of perfectly functioning railway with no hot boxes or high winds etc, but that abstract is not always a reality. Furthermore, what normally happens is that efficiency by building more follows the pattern of: Increased potential capacity which then becomes increased use which becomes increased congestion and/or cancellations/lates when everything becomes utilised to its maximum capacity with no slack or spares for extras (extra rush-hour trains, football and summer-Saturday extras) and something negatively impacts the system. An example of this desire maximise the use of everything is the frequency of trains between London and Manchester. Do we really have to run three trains each hour only between Euston and Piccadilly? With such tight diagrams no wonder everything becomes chaotic when a failure of some sort happens. The easiest first reform would be to look at routing at least as a first option.

I do not know what the solution is. As I wrote: Easier written than done. Apologies if re-routing, timetabling etc has already been considered.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting and more platforms could be created at Piccadilly. However, further toward Oxford Road and beyond you would be demolishing buildings (assuming a four-track set-up) and other considerations exist. The sort of city he wants to be in is a consideration even though a political consideration (that which is public is political and that which involves an other is public).

Also, I am not sure only(?) two extra platforms would be very useful. Two extra platforms (15/16) would potentially ease crowding on platforms 13/14. However, the switches for 15/16 would possibly increase congestion (four tracks going into two tracks and two tracks into four tracks even if the platforms are arranged down-down/up-up). Either way (whether down/up-down/up or down-down/up-up) at some point the switch track a will have to: A train on track a will have to cross track b to get to track c (and the same for a train on track d to get onto track b) either through a crossing or a ladder junction arrangement or down/up a and down/up b to respectively combine/split. The middle two tracks (b and c) would become clogged if all four tracks are run at capacity unless tracks b and c are only(?) to be used as relief lines.

Anyway, my main point was that building is not the only solution to a problem. More is not always better. First reform what we have rather than use 'vision and optimism' as an all-encompassing solution. I know 'vision and optimism' allows me to think of perfectly functioning railway with no hot boxes or high winds etc, but that abstract is not always a reality. Furthermore, what normally happens is that efficiency by building more follows the pattern of: Increased potential capacity which then becomes increased use which becomes increased congestion and/or cancellations/lates when everything becomes utilised to its maximum capacity with no slack or spares for extras (extra rush-hour trains, football and summer-Saturday extras) and something negatively impacts the system. An example of this desire maximise the use of everything is the frequency of trains between London and Manchester. Do we really have to run three trains each hour only between Euston and Piccadilly? With such tight diagrams no wonder everything becomes chaotic when a failure of some sort happens. The easiest first reform would be to look at routing at least as a first option.

I do not know what the solution is. As I wrote: Easier written than done. Apologies if re-routing, timetabling etc has already been considered.

You probably want to go look up the previous plans for 15/16. As I understand it, there would have been essentially an island with two platform faces for each direction. This doesn’t involve any complicated junctions, but does improve capacity as a following train can now approach a platform without the train in front leaving, or trains can overtake.

 

[Bevan Price]

I meant the South Junction line proper, the original project without the Altrincham branch (even though that was added in at the planning stage, authorised by the same Act, and opened first (by a few days)). Yes, a major portion of the branch was quadrupled.

Were there any cross-city lines in this country that were built with four tracks from the start? I don't think Manchester was uniquely unlucky in that respect, but it was unlucky in that nothing was done to improve this one when it would have been more easily possible. I wonder how far that could be down to the fact that whilst one of the two owning companies was wealthy and successful, that was the one that probably made the lesser amount of use of this connection, whereas the company for which it would have been more valuable was the one that was always horribly short of money and in any case eventually got a cross-Manchester connection by a new line further out (the Fallowfield loop).

There used to be 4 tracks at the Manchester end. Unfortunately, they ran into Manchester Central rather than Oxford Road & Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Like Liverpool Central the main issue at Piccadilly 13/14 is people rather than train movements, so long as things are fed into Castlefield in the right order. I have wondered if it would make sense to consider making the present island only to serve the Platform 13 side (fencing off the other side) and to cantilever a platform off the viaduct as a replacement, wider 14. That would at least solve the people problem which is far greater on 14 than 13 because of the wider range of destinations - you don't get the same crowd buildup on 13 because almost all trains and passengers are going to the same place.

I'd envisage something that at platform level would look a bit like the newer platforms at Rugby.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You probably want to go look up the previous plans for 15/16. As I understand it, there would have been essentially an island with two platform faces for each direction. This doesn’t involve any complicated junctions, but does improve capacity as a following train can now approach a platform without the train in front leaving, or trains can overtake.

That was my understanding too, although I can't now find any details of the original plans online. The railforums thread discussing their abandonment is here. I think the only conceivable sensible way to build them would be as another island immediately South of P13/14, so P13/14 would become the Eastbound platform island, and the arrangement would be up/up down/down. As you say it improves capacity because a train wouldn't have to wait for the previous one to depart before it can pull into the platform. That's particularly important at Piccadilly because dwell times tend to be quite long due to the large numbers of people getting on/off. London Bridge has a very similar arrangement for the Charing Cross lines, where the two lines split into four with two islands, and that seems to work very well under quite similar circumstances (very frequent trains with everything stopping and a very large passenger turnover on a lot of the trains).